Many readers complain that the financial institutions that are keen to take
their money are less willing to answer legitimate questions. Jessica
Gorst-Williams is here to help

Since I have been retired, the firm which I worked for has been sold to another company and the pension scheme folded. Some time after that the Financial Assistance Scheme got in touch and informed me that they had secured more pension for me as a top-up from that scheme, starting at £21 and rising to approximately £26 per month. As you can see from the enclosed letter from the FAS, they are suddenly stopping these monthly payments and demanding I pay all overpaid money back. It is enough to have to lose £26 per month, which I can’t afford, but to demand the total amount back is appalling and no way can I afford it.

CH, Powys

For anyone who, understandably enough, is not aware of what the FAS is, to crib some of its own fact sheet, it offers help to some people who lost out on their pension because they were a member of an underfunded defined benefit scheme that started to wind-up between January 1 1997 and April 5 2005. The FAS is now administered by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF), which, as well as having this role, also covers schemes that went bust after April 5 2005. More details can be found on pensionprotectionfund.org.uk where, on the home page, you will find the menu on the left-hand side for Financial Assistance Scheme, although it does not exactly jump off the page. The helpline number is 0845 604 4585.

When I approached the PPF on your behalf, it told me that imperfect data it had originally inherited from your pension scheme had suggested you were a member of another scheme. Better scheme data obtained later on showed you had transferred your rights out of the scheme and were not entitled to receive the FAS assistance you are referring to.

The overpayment was supposed to cover the period between May 14 2004 and September 21 2010, and was deemed by the FAS to be £2,526. A long way into my fight for you on this matter you did some calculations and concluded the amount at issue was in fact £1,621 and that the first payment relevant to your case had only been made on December 27 2007. It had, therefore, been on the basis of the former figure that I tackled the problem.

Related Articles

The PPF, again on behalf of the FAS, insisted at the start of my taking this up for you that it was still obliged to ask you to return the overpaid sum as it is public money. It asked you to suggest a reasonable repayment plan.

For a while I couldn’t reach you on the phone. I have to say, given some disappointing experiences I have had with complainants pleading poverty and who then were similarly unobtainable only to emerge weeks later from a round-the-world cruise or some such travel experience and who were still arguing they were poor, my convictions about the merits of this began to wane.

However, by calling later one evening than I would normally, I found you in. It turned out that your wife had been in hospital for a month and you had been with her nearly all of every day. You sounded tired. It transpires that your wife has been progressively disabled all her life and neither of you has had a proper holiday for 25 years.

I learnt that, before you left many years ago, your work had been on the factory floor and your knowledge about pension schemes is scant. Moreover, you have very little in the way of savings.

I now pursued the matter with renewed energy. I still don’t know the exact whys and wherefores of the figure which was owed. Moreover, clearly the FAS has had problems getting the information it needed from elsewhere. The main point, though, that makes the amount in question academic, is that mercifully the burdensome debt has now been waived and you can put the matter behind you.

They can’t write off my pen’s lifetime warranty

I have a problem with my 25-year-old Parker fountain pen. My wife bought it for me for our silver wedding anniversary. It was purchased with a “lifetime guarantee”. It has been serviced and repaired by Parker over this period. The service was organised by WH Smith and usually took two weeks.

Some weeks ago my pen developed a slight leak at the nib end and the cap was quite loose. I took it to W H Smith and was informed that the repair service was no longer available even though my pen was covered by the lifetime guarantee. They gave me an address to contact. I have written to them on three occasions but to date have not received a response. Would you please bring your powers of persuasion to bear on this company to find out what is the position with service and repairs?

GH, Lancs

The silver pen, bought 25 years ago, came with what you understood to be an unconditional lifetime guarantee. However, after all this time you do not have the original purchase document or warranty available for inspection.

You point out that, on the two occasions when the pen needed a repair in the past, you were not asked to produce such paperwork.

After I contacted Newell Rubbermaid, which bought Parker, it sent a £21.60 estimate for the repair. You protested and it then returned your Parker 75 pen saying it had repaired it as an exception free of charge. It said the damage was not covered under warranty. Given how the guarantee was billed at the outset and how it has worked since then, this is perplexing.

Newell Rubbermaid points out that you had a manufacturer’s guarantee for which in the past W H Smith had been just a handling agent. It stated that these warranties “are not unconditional but cover manufacturing defects and poor workmanship”.

The company added: “It does not cover accidental damage, misuse, loss of a component, 'wear and tear’ or the overhauling of the instrument.

“If the repair cannot be covered by the warranty we, SAS (Parker Rotring Waterman Service After Sales), issue a quote corresponding to the repair cost. A customer would then decide if he approves or refuses the repair cost before the repair is carried out.”

Nowadays, the retail price of an equivalent fountain pen would be approximately £190. You pointed out that your pen was never misused. However, you said, Newell Rubbermaid has done a superb repair job and your beloved pen is as good as new once again.

• Because of the volume of mail received, it is not possible to respond to every letter and correspondence cannot be entered into. Please do not send original documents or stamped and addressed envelopes. Responsibility, legal or otherwise, for answers given cannot be accepted. Cases currently with an ombudsman, going through a court of law or sent to other columns will not be considered. In addition I cannot take up issues when the writer is a third party, other than in exceptional circumstances. I cannot respond to emails.